Cross validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) over-reporting indicators in a military sample

ABSTRACT

Following the development of the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), three other cognitive over-reporting indicators were created. This study cross-validates these new Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) measurements in a military sample and contrasts their performance to the CBS. We analyzed data from 288 active-duty soldiers who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Groups were established based on performance validity testing (PVT) failure. Medium effects (d = .71 to .74) were observed between those passing and failing PVTs. The CB-SOS scales have high specificity (≥.90) but low sensitivity across the suggested cut scores. While all CB-SOS were able to achieve .90, lower scores were typically needed. CBS demonstrated incremental validity beyond CB-SOS-1 and CB-SOS-3; only CB-SOS-2 was incremental beyond CBS. In a military sample, the CB-SOS scales have more limited sensitivity than in its original validation, indicating an area of limited utility despite easier calculation. The CBS performs comparably, if not better, than CB-SOS scales. CB-SOS-2ʹs differences in performance in this study and its initial validation suggest that its psychometric properties may be sample dependent. Given their ease of calculation and relatively high specificity, our study supports the interpretation of elevated CB-SOS scores indicating those who are likely to fail concurrent PVTs.

KEYWORDS:

• Personality assessment inventory
• cognitive symptoms
• over-reporting
• symptom validity
• military

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Due to the nature of this research and IRB stipulation, participants of this study did not agree for their data to be shared publicly, so supporting data is not publicly available.

Notes

1. AUC and classification accuracies range from 0 (completely inaccurate classification) to 1.00 (completely accurate classification), with a value of .50 indicating classification at random chance levels. AUC values were interpreted as having small (.57), medium (.64), and large (.71) effects sizes (Rice & Harris, 2005).

2. No support was received for this project from PAR, Inc, publisher and distributor of the PAI.

Additional information

Funding

No funding or support was received for this project.